click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
the charge publicly against chuck hagel. yet he you voted to confirm him as defense secretary. he was sworn two hours ago at the pentagon. why the vote to favor him? >> i filibuster ited him white -- twice because i wanted more information. when republicans stick together we could get information. i was disappointed several on my side after they filibustered him up immediately announced they wouldn't continue the filibuster so we never got the information. i'm the same way on brennan. i want more information on drone strikes in america. on final passage though i take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative who he appoints to political appointees. so i would like to get as much information as can. i will stick with the party, if the party will stick together to get more information. in the end i voted for john kerry also although i agree with almost nothing that john kerry represents. bill: will secretary hagel be a good and satisfactory defense secretary in your view? >> you know, i don't really know. there are many libertarian reasons not to be excited ab
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)